Why is Nietzsche so lauded?

[Asuno]

I just got done reading a book one of my college nephews gave me. It’s a book containing the biographies of Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Socrates, and about a dozen other famous philosophers in history, as well as an extensive overview of their respective philosophies. (It’s actually his textbook for his class, but I’ll read almost anything once…almost, and only once for most, and quite a few I never intend to even finish…) Anyway, to the point; after reading about Nietzsche and his philosophy I can only conclude that he was an idiot. Why do so many people think he was so great? I mean, look at the man. “By his fruits you shall know him.” And man, what a fruit he was. They say he only lost his mind towards the end of his life, but it seems to me he was losing his mind all along.

I’m serious, why is Nietzsche considered to be so great? Am I missing something?

 

[sphilomena]

Probably because of the professors people listened to in their classes! A priest friend of mine blames Kant, Nietzsche, and others like them for the state of the Church today. I guess he figures their thinking was widely adopted, even at seminaries. At my Catholic college we were required to have a philosophy minor and had an excellent foundation. Needless to say, we did not read these people. It was back in the days when Catholic colleges were really Catholic!

Nietzsche is the “God is dead” guy, if I’m not mistaken!

 

[Mirdath]

Because Nietzsche was intelligent, eloquent, insightful, and devilishly funny. Not to say he was perfect by any means, or that his philosophy and ethics are gospel truth, but Also Sprach Zarathustra remains one of the greatest books ever written. To dismiss Nietzsche as a mere enfant terrible who ran around just trying to get a rise out of people with ‘God is dead!’ is seriously underrating him.

sphilomena: it’s pretty obvious you haven’t read Kant or Nietzsche – this is the first time I’ve ever seen them mentioned as brothers in arms. They are nothing alike. You might actually appreciate at least Kant a good deal more than you think you would.

 

[Asuno]

Nietzsche is the “God is dead” guy, if I’m not mistaken!

That he is, as well the guy who introduced “the will to power as sole motivator” and “the ideal of the superman” philosophies. He attacked Christianity quite vigorously his whole life.

 

[sphilomena]

I didn’t say they were “brothers in arms”. Asuno and my priest friend mentioned them together. If I have been warned away from something harmful, I will not immerse myself in it. A sample is enough. Just an explanation; I have no intention of being argumentative.

 

[Asuno]

Because Nietzsche was intelligent, eloquent, insightful, and devilishly funny. Not to say he was perfect by any means, or that his philosophy and ethics are gospel truth, but Also Sprach Zarathustra remains one of the greatest books ever written. To dismiss Nietzsche as a mere enfant terrible who ran around just trying to get a rise out of people with ‘God is dead!’ is seriously underrating him.

Well, it’s true I never read any of Nietzsche’s actual works, but based on what I have read (see first posting), I really don’t want to. Everything one reads or hears or sees has an impact on the mind. I figure I’ve exposed my mind to more than enough of Nietzsche to last me a lifetime. You may think he was intelligent, but I don’t. I think he was, as you say, an enfant terrible. But then, hey, that’s just my opinion. I like Chesterson and Aquainus a lot better, personally. Have you ever read any works by either of them, Mirdath? I assure you, if it’s intellect you value, you’ll find no higher intellect than Aquainus.

Oh, and Happy New Year!

 

[Mirdath]

Well, it’s true I never read any of Nietzsche’s actual works, but based on what I have read (see first posting), I really don’t want to.

Fair enough…

Everything one reads or hears or sees has an impact on the mind. I figure I’ve exposed my mind to more than enough of Nietzsche to last me a lifetime. You may think he was intelligent, but I don’t. I think he was, as you say, an enfant terrible. But then, hey, that’s just my opinion.

…until you say that. You’re in no position to say he was an idiot and a provocateur (granted, he was that at times, but not to the extent you seem to think he was) without having read anything he wrote. At least give his magnum opus Zarathustra a read – then you’ll have something to actually base an opinion on.

I like Chesterson and Aquainus a lot better, personally. Have you ever read any works by either of them, Mirdath? I assure you, if it’s intellect you value, you’ll find no higher intellect than Aquainus.

Not so much Chesterton, but I am indeed quite familiar with the Angelic Doctor. Admirable man, although I must disagree with you on ‘no higher intellect’ – he’s certainly up there, but hardly a perfect mind.

Oh, and Happy New Year!

And to you too!

 

[Asuno]

Not so much Chesterton, but I am indeed quite familiar with the Angelic Doctor. Admirable man, although I must disagree with you on ‘no higher intellect’ – he’s certainly up there, but hardly a perfect mind.

Well, that too is a matter of opinion, then. I might give Zarathustra a try, though, since you like it so much. Perhaps I do owe the man that much. But I’ve got to sign off for now, and go take care of this nasty head-n-chest cold. TTFN, everyone, and stay warm.

 

[lak611]

Because Nietzsche was intelligent, eloquent, insightful, and devilishly funny. Not to say he was perfect by any means, or that his philosophy and ethics are gospel truth, but Also Sprach Zarathustra remains one of the greatest books ever written. To dismiss Nietzsche as a mere enfant terrible who ran around just trying to get a rise out of people with ‘God is dead!’ is seriously underrating him.

sphilomena: it’s pretty obvious you haven’t read Kant or Nietzsche – this is the first time I’ve ever seen them mentioned as brothers in arms. They are nothing alike. You might actually appreciate at least Kant a good deal more than you think you would.

I read Nietzsche and Kant in a Philosophy of Man course at a Catholic college. They are not at all similar.

 

[lak611]

Fair enough…

…until you say that. You’re in no position to say he was an idiot and a provocateur (granted, he was that at times, but not to the extent you seem to think he was) without having read anything he wrote. At least give his magnum opus Zarathustra a read – then you’ll have something to actually base an opinion on.

I do not agree with Nietzsche’s philosophy, but one cannot dismiss him as an idiot. He actually was brilliant.

Not so much Chesterton, but I am indeed quite familiar with the Angelic Doctor. Admirable man, although I must disagree with you on ‘no higher intellect’ – he’s certainly up there, but hardly a perfect mind.

Chesterton was never studied in my philosophy courses, but I have read some of his writings on my own. Personally, I prefer C.S. Lewis.

 

[Leopard]

Why is Nietzsche so lauded?

I think many people who laud Nietzsche probabably haven’t read his books either. But a lot of people don’t like God, or the idea of God, and “God is dead” was a pretty chutzpahzy thing to say. So those people latched on to him as a hero.

But I expect Nietzsche has revised his opinions in the time since he died himself.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Also, Nietzsche was a master of the German language. He is right up there with people like Kafka and Heine.

And people most people have a misunderstanding of what Nietzsche meant when he wrote “Gott ist tot.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead

 

[inthecloud]

Because Nietzsche was intelligent, eloquent, insightful, and devilishly funny. Not to say he was perfect by any means, or that his philosophy and ethics are gospel truth, but Also Sprach Zarathustra remains one of the greatest books ever written. To dismiss Nietzsche as a mere enfant terrible who ran around just trying to get a rise out of people with ‘God is dead!’ is seriously underrating him.

Nieztche is the great prophet of what is wrong with the modern world. I have read most of his most important works and some books on him.
To a christian who is sure about his faith he can give you a good mental sparring on atheist arguments and show you what can go wrong with Christianity. As a lutheran preacher’s son he did show some apreciation towards the CC. Zarathurstra lowered his sword when the priests were are his enemies passed by him and also taked to the retired Pope. FN did not have a good opinion of Luther, he saw him as ignorant classless german monk who destroyed a carefully built traditon and brung down Christianity.
He gave you a warning of the dangers the new unbelief will bring. Like Socialism and Nationalism. Sadly he was right.
When her devout lutheran sister had him interned by a dementia allegely caused by syphilis. He spended the last ten years of his life in lunacy bin. To the disappointed of many of his atheist followers he received the sacrament of confession from a Catholic Priest, or is so rumored.

 

[Fidelis]

To read the classical philosophers and even call them great is not the same thing as agreeing with them or following them. The value of (a Christian, especially) being familiar with their work is to be able to have an idea of why (besides the perrenial problem of sin) the world is in the condition is is today. These philosophers and others (like Marx and Sarte) set the groundwork for some of the most influential --and destructive --ideologies of the past century (Marx, Communism and Nietzsche, Nazism) the repucussions of which we still live with today.

Other philosophers in turn laid the groundwork for our modern culture of materialism, practical atheism and relativism. To be familiar with the philosophic under-pinnings of these modern currents better enables us to provide answers to those who are laboring under their errors.

To put a different twist on an old saying, to be ignorant of past errors is to be doomed to repeat them.

 

[Mirdath]

These philosophers and others (like Marx and Sarte) set the groundwork for some of the most influential --and destructive --ideologies of the past century (Marx, Communism and Nietzsche, Nazism) the repucussions of which we still live with today.

Nietzsche was co-opted by the Nazis thanks to his sister (who edited and cherrypicked his works into Der Wille Zur Macht after his death); he probably spent the first half of the 20th century spinning in his grave. He was vehemently anti-nationalist, and his opinions about persecuting the Jews are neatly expressed in one of his later letters, which he signs off with ‘I am just out having all anti-Semites shot’.

Hitler needed someone to be a figurehead for his philosophy, and thanks to Elisabeth Foerster-Nietzsche, Friedrich was made into that figurehead. The actual man was about as far from a Nazi as one can get.

 

[hildegaard]

To read the classical philosophers and even call them great is not the same thing as agreeing with them or following them. The value of (a Christian, especially) being familiar with their work is to be able to have an idea of why (besides the perrenial problem of sin) the world is in the condition is is today. These philosophers and others (like Marx and Sarte) set the groundwork for some of the most influential --and destructive --ideologies of the past century (Marx, Communism and Nietzsche, Nazism) the repucussions of which we still live with today.

Other philosophers in turn laid the groundwork for our modern culture of materialism, practical atheism and relativism. To be familiar with the philosophic under-pinnings of these modern currents better enables us to provide answers to those who are laboring under their errors.

To put a different twist on an old saying, to be ignorant of past errors is to be doomed to repeat them.

Yes, it is important to know what they said, because their philosophies pervade our cultures. To be ignorant of what is driving our culture is to not be able to try and fix it. Here is the “God is dead” quote in broader context (from Galileo Was Wrong, Sungenis/Bennett):

“Where has God gone?” he cried. “I
shall tell you. We have killed him –
you and I. We are his murderers. But
how have we done this? How were
we able to drink up the sea? Who
gave us the sponge to wipe away the
entire horizon? What did we do when
we unchained the Earth from its sun?
Whither is it moving now? Whither
are we moving now? Away from all
suns? Are we not perpetually falling?
Backward, sideward, forward, in all
directions? Is there any up or down
left? Are we not straying as through
an infinite nothing? Do we not feel
the breath of empty space? Has it not
become colder? Is it not more and
more night coming on all the time?
Must not lanterns be lit in the
morning? Do we not hear anything
yet of the noise of the gravediggers
who are burying God? Do we not
smell anything yet of God’s
decomposition? Gods, too,
decompose. God is dead. God
remains dead. And we have killed
him. How shall we, murderers of all
murderers, console ourselves?”

This article points out where these philosophies lead.

 

[inthecloud]

Nietzsche was co-opted by the Nazis thanks to his sister (who edited and cherrypicked his works into Der Wille Zur Macht after his death); he probably spent the first half of the 20th century spinning in his grave. He was vehemently anti-nationalist, and his opinions about persecuting the Jews are neatly expressed in one of his later letters, which he signs off with ‘I am just out having all anti-Semites shot’.

Anyone linking Nietzche with nazism has obviously not read his books at all.

Nietzche " The Christian God is Dead" in the Gay Science, them repeated in Also sprach Zarathuster is not a simple atheist expresion. To be Dead one should be Alive first. The passage is one of his most beautiful ones estates that as a general reference and foundation to modern western culture the Christian God is Dead and was not longer the anchor and compass that guides western culture. Even many christians would agee with that. He also saw that situation as a moment of great danger and oportunity. The next century proved him right about the dangers.

 

[annem]

Nietzsche was co-opted by the Nazis thanks to his sister (

Certainly there have been some scholars who have argued this recently. However, I don’t find them convincing. In Zarathustra Nietzsche clearly argues in favor of the great man, the superman, which was part of the main strands that did lead to Hitler. So was Nietzsche’s clear loathing for the common man and the religious beliefs of the common man.

Zarathustra was written in the style of the bible, but it was the bible of Nietzsche, a bible of hatred of God and the common man.

God bless, Anne

 

[Mirdath]

Certainly there have been some scholars who have argued this recently. However, I don’t find them convincing. In Zarathustra Nietzsche clearly argues in favor of the great man, the superman, which was part of the main strands that did lead to Hitler. So was Nietzsche’s clear loathing for the common man and the religious beliefs of the common man.

And the overman, one might notice, is never described as blond-haired and blue-eyed. Nietzsche did not loathe the common man – only those who were common by choice made Zarathustra nauseous.

Hitler did indeed use the concept of the overman – in an entirely different way from Nietzsche. Hitler’s overman is great by an accident of birth; Nietzsche’s, by constant striving and transcendence.

Zarathustra was written in the style of the bible, but it was the bible of Nietzsche, a bible of hatred of God and the common man.

Hatred? Much of Zarathustra is a requiem and remembrance of God, and one of its main points is that now that we have killed him we have no choice but to rely on ourselves – and maybe, just maybe, we can live up to that.

 

[annem]

And the overman, one might notice, is never described as blond-haired and blue-eyed. Nietzsche did not loathe the common man – only those who were common by choice made Zarathustra nauseous.

Hitler did indeed use the concept of the overman – in an entirely different way from Nietzsche. Hitler’s overman is great by an accident of birth; Nietzsche’s, by constant striving and transcendence.

Yes, Hitler did use the concept of the overman. No kidding. But no, not in an entirely different way. Both kinds of supermen were simply born better, above the common herd which worshiped God.

Hatred? Much of Zarathustra is a requiem and remembrance of God, and one of its main points is that now that we have killed him we have no choice but to rely on ourselves – and maybe, just maybe, we can live up to that.

Looks like we must agree to disagree. I found nothing in Zarathustra like that, merely enduring, implacable hatred of God, not to mention a self love which bordered on fanatical self-worship.

God bless, Anne